If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
once agin: medium vs. digital
Hey folks -
I'm looking at the medium format cameras at my local camera shop. The sales guy went over medium format with me, and also showed me a 24"x whatever print from an 8 MP digital camera. So now I don't know what to buy. Here's the cons vs. pros: digital cons: - 1 year warranty: I work with computers, and I really don't trust a digital device that's not warrantied for more than one year. It feels like a very expensive disposable camera. I know that when ( and when I say 'when', I do mean 'when' and also 'soon') it breaks after 1 year, it will be more expensive to repair than to replace. - low quality images?: I've tried to find authoritative informatino on grain vs. pixels, but stuff is all over the map. These large digital prints I saw at the photo shop were very impressive, though. digital pros: - No cost for picture taking: I can blow 1000 photos a day and not pay for any developing or printing. - Easy to share and upload images. - 1 year same as cash financing: there is a Christmas special at my local camera place. Medium format pros: - Higher quality lenses: lenses would be better *I guess* for a MF system. - Value Retention. The MF cameras would hold value for a long time, while a digital camera would wuickly degrade in value. I'm certain after 10 years a digital won't work and will be too expensive to fix. - Alternate films: I can load Infrared film, very fast film ( like star film), and high saturation film. - Digital backs: do they make digital backs? MF cons: - Film , printing and developing. - Upfront costs: no financing for used equipment. I feel like if I buy a digital camera, I will be on a plan for revolving purchases every 2-3 years. I feel like the repairable MF will last a long time... I guess if they made digital backs, I would go medium format. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
medium format camera
120 film scanner sorted. "Steve Lefevre" wrote in message ... Hey folks - I'm looking at the medium format cameras at my local camera shop. The sales guy went over medium format with me, and also showed me a 24"x whatever print from an 8 MP digital camera. So now I don't know what to buy. Here's the cons vs. pros: digital cons: - 1 year warranty: I work with computers, and I really don't trust a digital device that's not warrantied for more than one year. It feels like a very expensive disposable camera. I know that when ( and when I say 'when', I do mean 'when' and also 'soon') it breaks after 1 year, it will be more expensive to repair than to replace. - low quality images?: I've tried to find authoritative informatino on grain vs. pixels, but stuff is all over the map. These large digital prints I saw at the photo shop were very impressive, though. digital pros: - No cost for picture taking: I can blow 1000 photos a day and not pay for any developing or printing. - Easy to share and upload images. - 1 year same as cash financing: there is a Christmas special at my local camera place. Medium format pros: - Higher quality lenses: lenses would be better *I guess* for a MF system. - Value Retention. The MF cameras would hold value for a long time, while a digital camera would wuickly degrade in value. I'm certain after 10 years a digital won't work and will be too expensive to fix. - Alternate films: I can load Infrared film, very fast film ( like star film), and high saturation film. - Digital backs: do they make digital backs? MF cons: - Film , printing and developing. - Upfront costs: no financing for used equipment. I feel like if I buy a digital camera, I will be on a plan for revolving purchases every 2-3 years. I feel like the repairable MF will last a long time... I guess if they made digital backs, I would go medium format. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Recently, Steve Lefevre posted:
I feel like if I buy a digital camera, I will be on a plan for revolving purchases every 2-3 years. I feel like the repairable MF will last a long time... I guess if they made digital backs, I would go medium format. Well, "they" *do* make digital backs for MF cameras. But, since you're concerned about the financing for used MF gear, it's not likely that you'll be in the market for one any time soon. http://www.imacon.dk/sw2264.asp http://www.sl66.com/slx/acc_digital.htm http://www.eyelike.de/temp/index.php...umn=1&column=1 My advice to you is to do two things: First, search the archives of this newsgroup for the *many* discussions of MF vs. digital. You'll come across numerous viewpoints and pros and cons that you may not have considered. Second, disrgard all of it, and concentrate on making images. Only you know what you want to accomplish with your photography. I'd be surprised if it's based on clicking the shutter release without ever making an image. Regards, Neil |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Recently, Steve Lefevre posted:
I feel like if I buy a digital camera, I will be on a plan for revolving purchases every 2-3 years. I feel like the repairable MF will last a long time... I guess if they made digital backs, I would go medium format. Well, "they" *do* make digital backs for MF cameras. But, since you're concerned about the financing for used MF gear, it's not likely that you'll be in the market for one any time soon. http://www.imacon.dk/sw2264.asp http://www.sl66.com/slx/acc_digital.htm http://www.eyelike.de/temp/index.php...umn=1&column=1 My advice to you is to do two things: First, search the archives of this newsgroup for the *many* discussions of MF vs. digital. You'll come across numerous viewpoints and pros and cons that you may not have considered. Second, disrgard all of it, and concentrate on making images. Only you know what you want to accomplish with your photography. I'd be surprised if it's based on clicking the shutter release without ever making an image. Regards, Neil |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Recently, Steve Lefevre posted:
I feel like if I buy a digital camera, I will be on a plan for revolving purchases every 2-3 years. I feel like the repairable MF will last a long time... I guess if they made digital backs, I would go medium format. Well, "they" *do* make digital backs for MF cameras. But, since you're concerned about the financing for used MF gear, it's not likely that you'll be in the market for one any time soon. http://www.imacon.dk/sw2264.asp http://www.sl66.com/slx/acc_digital.htm http://www.eyelike.de/temp/index.php...umn=1&column=1 My advice to you is to do two things: First, search the archives of this newsgroup for the *many* discussions of MF vs. digital. You'll come across numerous viewpoints and pros and cons that you may not have considered. Second, disrgard all of it, and concentrate on making images. Only you know what you want to accomplish with your photography. I'd be surprised if it's based on clicking the shutter release without ever making an image. Regards, Neil |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 22:32:02 GMT, "Diluted"
wrote: medium format camera 120 film scanner I second this. Mo digital cons: - 1 year warranty: I work with computers, and I really don't trust a digital device that's not warrantied for more than one year. Well, it depends from the camera (there are a high number of different 8mp digital cameras, from small compact all-in-one digicams to hi-end digital reflex ("DSLR") like the Canon 1D-mkII, or medium-range digital reflex like the Canon 20D). You can bet a 1D-mkII (a camera built like a tank, with a shutter designed for at least 150'000 actuations) will last more than 1 year. :-) Here in EU, digital cameras have 2 years of warranty. But they are the same than in the USA. :-) - low quality images?: I've tried to find authoritative informatino on grain vs. pixels, but stuff is all over the map. I have a 6mp digital reflex (Canon 10D), a bunch of all-in-one digicams, plus 35mm and MF film gear of various kind (and 3 scanners). I used all those stuff for work for some time, and now mostly for hobby. I know how to make them work. Now, please have a look he This is *35mm* vs. 6mp DSLR. I know, it's a synthetic benchmark, but I think it's food for thought, at least. These large digital prints I saw at the photo shop were very impressive, though. You should see the 20"x25" digital print hanging from my wall, obtained by a 645 slide (scanned by myself with a medium format filmscanner). Loads of tiny details even when examined from 2 inches, and magnificient tonal range. Now *that's* impressive. :-) - No cost for picture taking: I can blow 1000 photos a day and not pay for any developing or printing. Spare rechargeable batteries, memory cards, memory card readers, spare battery charger, sensor cleaning kits, ... you name it. Medium format pros: - Higher quality lenses: lenses would be better *I guess* for a MF system. - Value Retention. The MF cameras would hold value for a long time, while I won't bet on it. Many MF gear loosed value like nothing else during the last two years. Many people is switching to digital for various reasons, and some MF mfgers are running out of business, and leaving MF scenes (Bronica, Fuji). I'd even suggest to go for 2nd hand MF gear. Much less expensive, and as you guessed, much of this stuff is built to last. Hardly weared off after many years (I still use a lot a '86 Pentax 645). digital camera would wuickly degrade in value. That's sure. Digital technology is running very fast. Standards come, standards go. New models supercede last year's models, in a fast-paced game. - Digital backs: do they make digital backs? Yes. Not exactly cheap. :-) A really good digital back is in the $15'000-$20'000 area (was $30'000 not long ago, but the introduction of two digital monsters like the Canon 1Ds-mkII and Mamiya ZD, at around $9'000 and $15'000 price tag, suggested a dramatic price cut), though you could find older ones for half that price. MF cons: - Film , printing and developing. If you buy a medium format filmscanner, you just have to shoot slides and have them processed. Than you handle your files to a good Lightjet-equipped digital printing lab, and you're OK. Large digital prints costs so much less than large Cibachromes. :-) Of course you'll have to really learn Photoshop or whatever. But you'll have to do that even if you buy a digital camera. :-) Fernando |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:31:57 -0500, "Steve Lefevre"
wrote: Hey folks - I'm looking at the medium format cameras at my local camera shop. The sales guy went over medium format with me, and also showed me a 24"x whatever print from an 8 MP digital camera. So now I don't know what to buy. Here's the cons vs. pros: If image quality is a serious concern, or if you intend to make very large prints, forget the digicam, unless it's something in the Canon 1Ds class. And even then, the comparison would be to 645, which some folks refer to as "half-frame" MF. MF is quite a bit more fuss and bother, and you *will* want a good MF scanner. The cost of the scanner should be considered in your calculations. I've got a 10D and two 645 cameras. I use 'em all, but where image quality is paramount, the 10D isn't my first choice. I do think the 10D gives my Nikons a run for the money, but MF is in a different league. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Steve Lefevre" wrote: Hey folks - Here's the cons vs. pros: digital cons: - 1 year warranty: I work with computers, and I really don't trust a digital device that's not warrantied for more than one year. It feels like a very expensive disposable camera. I know that when ( and when I say 'when', I do mean 'when' and also 'soon') it breaks after 1 year, it will be more expensive to repair than to replace. You need to relate the price of the digital _camera_ to the price of the film you would have shot. The digital body _is_ disposable. It's a new game. In some sense, the electronic film cameras are similar in that the electronics won't be repairable. But older cameras are only repairable if you can find someone competent and can afford to pay for their time. Playing with old cameras isn't as easy as some make it out to be. - low quality images?: I've tried to find authoritative informatino on grain vs. pixels, but stuff is all over the map. These large digital prints I saw at the photo shop were very impressive, though. IMHO, it's clear that 6MP isn't as good as 35mm, but 8MP is pretty close. 645 and 16.7 MP are probably very close, but 6x7 and 6x9 with ISO 100 film and 4000 dpi scans will more than edge out 16.7MP. digital pros: - No cost for picture taking: I can blow 1000 photos a day and not pay for any developing or printing. At ISO 1600, dSLRs are way ahead of 35mm film. Medium format pros: - Higher quality lenses: lenses would be better *I guess* for a MF system. Actually, MF lenses are generally worse than their 35mm counterparts in terms of MTF and limiting resolution performance. They are a _lot_ better in lines-per-height terms, though. - Value Retention. The MF cameras would hold value for a long time, while a digital camera would wuickly degrade in value. I'm certain after 10 years a digital won't work and will be too expensive to fix. Note that the MF camera has lost the money you spent on film and processing. If you make your own prints, you need a darkroom or a scanner. The darkroom's cheaper and makes better B&W, but the scanner + inkjet is a lot less painful than doing color yourself. Note, however, that scanning and darkroom work are increadible sinks of time. Both Adams and Winogrand (sp?) died with multiple tens of thousands of images taken that they never got around to printing. My experience with scanned MF is that I get out to the countryside twice a year, shoot 5 to 10 rolls of 120/220, and spend six months scanning. If you go out with your dSLR and shoot, say, spring flowers, you can come home evaluate the images in much more detail (and zero cost) than you could with 1-hour test prints and go out and reshoot the next day. With MF, you really don't know what you've got till you've scanned or printed, and your next shot at those images is a year away. So digital the first day, 6x7 the next is one way to go. - Alternate films: I can load Infrared film, very fast film ( like star film), and high saturation film. With digital, you can change the "film type" with a dSLR at every shot. IR sensitivity is pretty low, but it's there. If you capture in RAW, you can change the (daylight/tungsten) type of the film _for the same shot_ after the fact. - Digital backs: do they make digital backs? You can't afford a digital back, and the largest one is 38x48mm, so no wide angle. MF cons: - Film , printing and developing. - Upfront costs: no financing for used equipment. I feel like if I buy a digital camera, I will be on a plan for revolving purchases every 2-3 years. Exactly. Some people enjoy thatg. I feel like the repairable MF will last a long time... I guess if they made digital backs, I would go medium format. They do. They start at US$10,000. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:02:50 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote: Note, however, that scanning and darkroom work are increadible sinks of time. Both Adams and Winogrand (sp?) died with multiple tens of thousands of images taken that they never got around to printing. My experience with scanned MF is that I get out to the countryside twice a year, shoot 5 to 10 rolls of 120/220, and spend six months scanning. If you go out with your dSLR and shoot, say, spring flowers, you can come home evaluate the images in much more detail (and zero cost) than you could with 1-hour test prints and go out and reshoot the next day. With MF, you really don't know what you've got till you've scanned or printed, and your next shot at those images is a year away. So digital the first day, 6x7 the next is one way to go. IMO, Dave overstates the pain of film scanning. It takes me two or three evenings to scan a roll of MF on my LS-8000, and that's only if I choose to scan each frame. Figure 15 minutes per frame, all told - which includes setup, focus, scan, and saving/reviewing the file. Dave's right on with the benefits of digital capture, it's meaningful and makes me productive in surprising ways. There's really no excuse for coming home with bad pix from a decent, working digicam. (Always bring an extra battery and memory card...) So it's like Dave says -- the 10D comes out with me on the first visit to a new locale. It gives me lots of mobility and the freedom to snap away and experiment with views and perspectives. If the place is good enough to warrant a return trip, I'll most likely bring the MF or LF kit, working more slowly, to capture a few of the angles that worked well the first time. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sad news for film-based photography | Ronald Shu | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 199 | October 6th 04 01:34 AM |
Sad news for film-based photography | Ronald Shu | 35mm Photo Equipment | 200 | October 6th 04 12:07 AM |
Anti-digital backlash continues ... | Bill Hilton | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 284 | July 5th 04 05:40 PM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 09:51 PM |